Self-Sufficiency Series

Saturday, January 5, 2013

It's not a bill of needs, it's a bill of RIGHTS

Here's this weekend's WND column entitled It's Not a Bill of Needs, It's a Bill of RIGHTS.


37 comments:

  1. Yes, It is definitely Our Bill of RIGHTS! It is time that we the true Americans realize this and begin to quickly prepare for the coming Revolution.
    I have no doubt that the Despot in the White House was handed what he needed at Sandy Hook to initiate what he has been planning all along.
    Thru the advocation of and attempted implementation of the removal of the 2nd Ammendment from our Constitution, he will have the excuse he is looking for to declare Martial Law and set himself up as a Dictator.
    It behooves ever true red blooded American to prepare for what is surely coming.
    Patriots! It is time to Rise and be Counted!

    ReplyDelete
  2. THis is way off subject but I have a canning question. I pulled a bunch of berries out of the freezer yesterday and thawed them for canning. I filled each jar with exactly the same amount of berries and hot sugar water (to about 3/4 inch from the top of the jar). They all seemed to seal with that lovely 'pop' sound but the blackberries and raspberries go 'ping'when I tap them. They also have a little space on top. However the blueberries go 'thunk'and seem overfull--like they expanded in the jars. Do you have any idea what is going on? Why only the blueberries? I did nothing different with them. Thanks for any info you might have.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Patrice,

    Great article - Second Amendment

    ReplyDelete
  4. The sad truth of the matter is that it is not just progressives and liberals that believe this. You would not believe how many times I have heard from christians (small 'c' because I am very skeptical) about how horrible these tragedies are and that no one should be allowed to have guns. I believe that they too have been drinking the government koolaid and believe all of the lies fed them from the government media.

    One final note, I no longer speak my mind with them as I have received many chastisements that it is against the teachings in the bible to speak against the government.

    How I long to find others who haven't drunk the koolaid and still have a free mind.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fantastic article, Patrice. As usual, your commentary is a sane voice of reason amidst all the hysterical Progressive emotionalism. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not THAT is a column!

    Well said.

    ReplyDelete

  7. Patrice.......you say...."Why is it that progressives are always so ready to kill anyone who disagrees with their particular brand of control?"

    Aw, comon Patrice: I am a progressive and even I am offended by Donald Kaul’s article. I am incensed that you would attach a wacko like this to the hips of all progressives. Does the drama ever end?

    We are all mad as hell over Sandy Hook.....but a large part of this country (left or right) think that maybe we just don't need assault weapons and maybe…..just maybe….back ground checks could help cull the crazies or at least curb them.

    Again......this does not mean we want to ban the 2nd amendment!!

    A recent Gallop Poll states that 92 percent of ALL Americans favor background checks for buyers at gun shows, and 62 percent back prohibition of high-capacity magazines, which can carry up to 30 rounds of ammunition.

    The way it stands now, a peddler or someone at a gun show can sell a thousand guns if he wants out of the back of his trunk or in a booth without any documentation or history what so ever. Why would we need this kind of activity?? There needs to be some common sense change. BJ




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BJ - are you purposely ignoring what the 2nd amendment is about, why we have it? Do you like the rest of your rights? Or do you only like the rights that you think everyone should have?

      Citizens should keep and bear the same arms that any .gov agency has. I'm not talking about the military, I'm talking about the agencies that are already restricting our American rights - FBI, CIA, DHS, TSA...you get the idea. Without the ability to level the field, all other rights are granted to you as THEY see fit.

      And it doesn't matter if 95% of Americans want to restrict gun ownership because we were not set up as a democracy - you cannot vote away these rights.

      I realize I'm wasting my time. You will never see this the way we see it. You are happy to bend knee to the government.
      Chuck Myhre

      Delete
    2. I'm not interested in keeping the same arms as the government.

      I am perfectly aware of my 2nd amendment rights.....but if you think it is important to go hand to hand with the FBI, CIA, DHS and TSA......I guarantee you will not win that battle. Stay out of trouble and it won't be a problem.

      Booga, booga...watch out...the government is going to get you!!! That's the word on the street...right?

      Count me out of that tired, old fear based montra. Lets get some common sense laws and take high powered weapons off the street. BJ

      Delete
    3. The First Amendment is already gone along with the 9th and the 10th. Regarding the 2nd, "shall not be infringed" is gone. Why shouldn't I be able to use 10 bullets in a magazine that was designed for 10 but has been modified to only hold 8? What if there are two bad guys breaking into my house and I need all 10? How does that make sense? Why do I have to register my weapons? How is it the government's business what weapons I own? The 2nd is being chipped away bit by bit and pretty soon it'll be gone.

      Re the TSA, DHS and CIA, they shouldn't exist to begin with.

      Finally, as soon as the bad guys no longer have "high powered weapons" then I might consider giving up mine. Until then...no.

      Delete
  8. I grew up in the liberal pacifist tradition (civil rights activist father, hippie mother). The only thing I can tell you to explain why liberals don't understand that taking away guns from law-abiding gun-owners won't stop crime is that it just doesn't register. The emphasis is all on the horrible gun and not on the criminal who uses it. I had to come around to a pro-gun stance on my own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Look.....no one is taking your guns away...we just need to modify a few outrageous laws like "stand your ground" and the ever-so-easy accessibility of assault weapons that...oh yes......really DO get into the hands of RAMBO mental cases like Lanza. This is only because there is no resistance in finding them. These are the facts.

      We are an obsessive race and it shows in the egos of some gun owners that aren’t content with your average gun.....They have to have the biggest, the fastest and the largest capacity of 100 round drum clips of ammunition……for what?......who knows?

      This is a free country……but it is no longer free for 26 people at Sandy Hook. You will never stop all of it…..but you can sure as heck make it harder for them.

      The laws simply need to be modified and that is what Feinstien is trying to do. Don’t buy into the non factual, distorted information that is coming out from the right wing media. They just love to get people riled up thinking they will lose the 2nd amendment. What better way??? Some common sense, please………..BJ

      Delete
    2. Aren't content with an average gun? That's just what an assault platform firearm is, an average gun that looks different. I think thats what your "average bear" needs to know, It's the same as a "normal" rifle of the same caliber. It has rails (the scary black round thing around the barrel) so a firearm owner can customize it to their preference, like putting a flashlight or other accessory on the firearm. And It's black! Or camo, or pink...I think you get the idea

      Delete
    3. I think you and I both know the difference without getting into semantics......Would Lanza have killed as many kids in seconds with a 30/30? I think not......Common sense....BJ

      Delete
    4. BJ,
      Ever shot a 30-30? I have, I even own one too. I can go through my first 8 rounds just as fast as my buddies can with their semi-autos. While hitting a sight better than them too.
      It is a bit of a competition we have with each other as I prefer guns a little older in style.
      A thirty round magazine is not all that great if you aren't hitting what you aim at.
      I have more hits with less bullets than most of my buddies and I can actually shoot with twenty hits on target for every thirty rounds they fire.
      It is never about how many rounds fired, it is about how many hit the target.
      In the case of Lanza, people are saying that if guns weren't as accessible he would have had to settle for something less destructive like a knife or (if semi-autos were banned) a revolver. I know guys (not competition grade) who use speed loaders to shoot as fast as a semi. And McVeigh never used a gun at all.
      It isn't the gun, it is the person behind it.
      Lanza was social inept and stunted, not stupid. Don't make him out to be unable to function without assistance. He planned this heinous act, and started it by shooting his mother in the face. Blame the SHOOTER, not the GUN, or are we going to start remaking McVeigh's image into that of a troubled youth who had too easy and too much access to fertilizer?

      Delete
  9. My question for people who wish to ban assault rifles is this: do you know what makes a rifle an assault rifle? Is It because it looks scary? Looks different? Because Its black (sometimes)? Is it because the media has portrayed them to be something they aren't? People are entitled to their opinions, but please do your research. Millions of americans use assault platform firearms to gather food (hunt) and partake in shooting sports. It's clear that the media and powers that be either don't know these facts and/or choose to Ignore them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Since when do you require a 100 round drum clip to hunt for food. It's not what they look like....but what they can mow down in a matter of seconds in the hands of the wrong person. BJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BJ,

      100 rd drums are a little pricey if you want them to work. Most who have good/reliable ones are what you would call enthusiastic shooters who like quality and shooting a lot for the joy of shooting (I know this is hard to believe, but some people do enjoy shooting. It puts them in a position where they get to see the results of mastering a technique and concentrating on their body's rythmn and breathing cycle). Not a person likely to go out and do something stupid. They put a lot of time and effort into their sport.
      The cheapo drums are just that, cheap. Like you said, more for a Rambo wannabee than anything else, but they also don't work. I do shoot with wannabees too. (How else can you convert them to actually aiming at the target?) One guy I know can't through 7 rounds before it jams up on him. He is now on his third big drum. I think he might be coming around to the fact that all the ammo in the world doesnt matter if you can't get it to feed properly.
      Maybe. He does like the way they look in his rifle. ;)

      Delete
    2. First of all,they are not asking for existing guns to be turned over.

      The high velocity stuff is pretty expensive. Some of these rifles with banna clips, etc.......can run anywhere from 2 to 3 thousand dollars per and up.......It is big business!!

      That is why the NRA is so insistant on these types of guns being available.... because to stop them from freely being sold, it would effect a 12 BILLION DOLLAR A YEAR INDUSTRY to gun manufacturers. Check what goes through the gun lobbyists and it will make more sense.

      Like I said before, I think the NRA cares more about a dent in those billions than protecting schools. Follow the money!! BJ

      Delete
  11. Nowhere in the post above was a 100 round magazine mentioned, yhats a whole different discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That IS the discussion!!

      An AR-15 with a 100 round drum clip was one of the guns used by Lanza at Sandy Hook......point being....you don't NEED one of those to shoot a duck for your dinner.... but you do to kill many people in seconds. BJ

      Delete
    2. My point Is that assault rifles and high capacity magazines don't always go hand in hand, many people use AR platform firearms with magazines made for 10 rounds or less.

      Delete
    3. I realize that.....and if there are new laws made.....they may not even effect those kind of magazines with 10 rounds or less......
      but any gun that can rip off six shots PER SECOND can't be a good idea on any level for any one person. It is playing with fire and has caused a lot of grief to many innocent people. BJ

      Delete
    4. BJ, please let me know where I can get a semi-auto gun that can rip off 6 shots a second, I'd love to buy one...

      Oh, and by the way BJ, the reason the NRA and gun advocates and owners have fought so hard against gun control is that the leftists want just one ban. Just one for starters because if they can get that one then they have begun the end of private gun ownership in this country. It is the same slippery slope that the media screams about every time freedom of the press is threatened. You know this to be true, and it's why your argument doesn't fly with those of us that want to keep all our rights intact...

      Delete
    5. Brian......
      It's the old "if they ban one thing, they will take it all" gun argument created by high power gun advocates.

      These mantras have made the lobbyists, gun manufactures and the NRA very, very rich. If you follow the money.....you will connect the dots.

      As far as 6 shots in one second....that is what an AR-15 delivers....the Bushmaster does 15 shots per second (or rouphyly 800 rounds per minute). Do we really need these types of assault weapons in the hands of just anyone?

      It took James Holmes just two minutes to kill 12 people and injure 59 at the movie theatre shooting last year.

      Do you see anything wrong with any of this? Our rights within the second amendment will still be intact if we remove High velocity powered weapons from this society.

      The play on words is amazing. The right knows if they say "Obama's gun ban"....it will piss people off....when in fact....it is an automatic high powered assault weapons ban. We need to stop using cherry picked words to create twisted messages. BJ


























































      Delete
    6. 15 shots per second you say? Most people can't pull the trigger 15 times per second and thats what it would take. Do you get that an AR15 is a style not a caliber? That they only shoot one round each time the trigger Is pulled?

      Delete
    7. Depends on if it's semi or fully automatic. You hold the trigger down for consecutive shots. BJ

      Delete
    8. A fully automatic AR15? They don't exist Bub, that would be an M-16. There are some people who own MACHINE GUNS, but the licencing to obtain one is extreme. Learn the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and a MACHINE GUN...

      Delete
    9. I'm not Bub......and you're not exactly right.

      It is possible to convert an AR-15 to an M16.
      The AR-15 is a civilian version of the M16. You can't convert an automatic weapon without a special permit.....but that doesn't mean there are not a lot of them out there...but this is getting off the point.

      High powered firearmes like any of these weapons of war are only made for one reason....killing people....and killing them very fast. We have no need for them in this society unless we want to kill someone. (Even that can still be accomplished without mowing down trees).

      This is now a serious problem. Most of this country agrees that we can make it harder to get these weapons and still enjoy our second amendment rights. That is what Biden is working on now...for a bi-partisan best answer. BJ

      Delete
  12. I'm still going to parrot the old saw, It's not fault of the gun, it's the fault of the person holding it. I have two ARs, with several high capacity mags for them, and I haven't shot one single baby. I haven't shot anyone, with the ARs or with any of the other weapons I own. Why not? Because I'm not so psychotic that I think the gun is doing it. The laws they are contemplating will take away MY ARs. Does anyone honestly think the criminals and psychos will turn in theirs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So what about the ones that are psychotic?

      Why do you have two AR's? Is it an ego thing or do you really have a need for them? Maybe you just like them. It's a free country and you should have what you want when you want it......

      But if you thought for one second that giving them up would curb unnecessary violence upon innocent people when in the wrong hands.....would you be willing to give them up then if it didn't effect your second amendment rights? Maybe not.....

      We are all in this together and what we decide to do with our freedoms shouldn't always be about ourselves. BJ

      Delete
    2. How is that that the law-abiding citizens giving up their AR style platforms will reduce violence? They aren't the ones shooting up the U.S..
      Lanza 1) stole his mom's rifle, 2) shot her in the face with it and 3) used the stolen firearms to conduct his killing at the school.
      Tell me how the law-abiding citizen could have fixed this by turning in their AR?
      Unnecesary violence? are we really going to go there?
      There is so much of that on TV, in Games in the News that it is the standard our children are subjected to. They have become inured to the word "unnecessary". Teach your kids what a gun is for and how to handle them.
      I grew up with parents that taught me, my Uncle SAM gave me a more comprehensive set of lessons and I am passing that onto my girls.
      A gun shoots, what you do with it is YOUR responsability as a shooter. YOU pull the trigger and your reasons better be right.
      Only aim at what you intend to shoot and treat every firearm as if loaded. There are less surprises that way.

      Delete
    3. http://www.freewoodpost.com/2013/01/16/man-with-small-penis-worried-obama-will-take-away-his-right-to-overcompensate/

      Delete
  13. I'll admit, it's an ego thing. I like them. I have a tea strainer shaped like a chicken for the same reason. I have four other tea strainers, so I don't need the chicken one, but I like it.

    I do NOT think for one second that giving up my weapons would curb one ounce of unnecessary violence. How could it? I, nor anybody else is perpetrating violence with them. I would NOT be willing to give them up to curb violence, because they are not causing violence anymore than the tea strainer is.

    To paraphrase Winston Churchill, though, I am a peaceful person. But should violence come to my door it will find me home. I'll not be hitting evil men with a tea strainer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The intention now is not to take what you have away....but to make it harder to get more of them. BJ

      Delete
  14. By the way, Diane Feinstein has a Concealed Carry Permit and has for two decades. She also has armed guards. Yet, she wants to limit what the rest of us can have. Think on that a while.

    ReplyDelete
  15. University of Pennsylvania study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html

    ReplyDelete